Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
rick...@interfearingsounds.com wrote: Seamonkey: 3h 09m Opera: 4h 02m I used http://www.internet-guide.co.uk/static-html.html in both browsers and let the browsers be while they had the page loaded for a couple of minutes before I checked the readings. Regards. What does a blank page say for both browsers and what sequence are you testing the browsers and do you recharge between each browser? Jim ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
Seamonkey: 3h 09m Opera: 4h 02m I used http://www.internet-guide.co.uk/static-html.html in both browsers and let the browsers be while they had the page loaded for a couple of minutes before I checked the readings. Regards. ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
Oh, sorry. I missed out on exactly what you wanted me to use as reference. I was just about to go out and visit a friend but I will have this tab visible so that when I get home I won't forget to report how the new test with a simple static html page turns out. Regards Rickard G Den fredagen den 13:e juli 2012 kl. 13:06:55 UTC+2 skrev Philip TAYLOR: > rickard wrote: > > > I used a single tab in both browsers and headed over to > www.aftonbladet.se which has quite some stuff going on (flash, a lot of > animated pictures) and these are the results I got after letting the browsers > just sit still for a few minutes: > > > > Opera 12 - 5h 24m > > Seamonkey - 3h 01m > > OK, but that didn't really address my question, which is "Does > Seamonkey > use excessive resources only on dynamic pages (such as the one you > describe), or does it also use excessive resources on a single, > non-animated, no-plugin-dependencies, static HTML page ? > > Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
rick...@interfearingsounds.com wrote: I used a single tab in both browsers and headed over to www.aftonbladet.se which has quite some stuff going on (flash, a lot of animated pictures) and these are the results I got after letting the browsers just sit still for a few minutes: Opera 12 - 5h 24m Seamonkey - 3h 01m OK, but that didn't really address my question, which is "Does Seamonkey use excessive resources only on dynamic pages (such as the one you describe), or does it also use excessive resources on a single, non-animated, no-plugin-dependencies, static HTML page ? Philip Taylor ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
I used a single tab in both browsers and headed over to www.aftonbladet.se which has quite some stuff going on (flash, a lot of animated pictures) and these are the results I got after letting the browsers just sit still for a few minutes: Opera 12 - 5h 24m Seamonkey - 3h 01m I then closed Seamonkey and reopened Opera and after a minute the battery time is up to 6h. Regards. Den fredagen den 13:e juli 2012 kl. 12:13:52 UTC+2 skrev Philip TAYLOR: > What is the projected life if you open it at a single static HTML page > with no other integrated components (mail, news, IRC, WHY ...) open ? > > Philip Taylor > > rickard wrote: > > I noticed it on my new computer, an ASUS K53SV, without external AC > power in Battery Save Mode. In this mode I can get up to 6 hours of use when > I use IE 9 and about the same with Firefox x64 nightly and Opera 12 but after > a couple of minutes with Seamonkey the computer reports that I only have 2 > hours of use left. I surf the same sites with all the browsers. > > > > Do you people know why this might be the case? > > > > Regards > > Rickard G > > ___ > > support-seamonkey mailing list > > support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org > > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey > > ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Re: Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
What is the projected life if you open it at a single static HTML page with no other integrated components (mail, news, IRC, WHY ...) open ? Philip Taylor rick...@interfearingsounds.com wrote: I noticed it on my new computer, an ASUS K53SV, without external AC power in Battery Save Mode. In this mode I can get up to 6 hours of use when I use IE 9 and about the same with Firefox x64 nightly and Opera 12 but after a couple of minutes with Seamonkey the computer reports that I only have 2 hours of use left. I surf the same sites with all the browsers. Do you people know why this might be the case? Regards Rickard G ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey
Less battery time using Seamonkey (v 2.10.1) compared to IE9, Firefox and Opera.
I noticed it on my new computer, an ASUS K53SV, without external AC power in Battery Save Mode. In this mode I can get up to 6 hours of use when I use IE 9 and about the same with Firefox x64 nightly and Opera 12 but after a couple of minutes with Seamonkey the computer reports that I only have 2 hours of use left. I surf the same sites with all the browsers. Do you people know why this might be the case? Regards Rickard G ___ support-seamonkey mailing list support-seamonkey@lists.mozilla.org https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/support-seamonkey